A recent Cultural Competency training made me start thinking about the lenses through which we look at the world. Whether we realize it or not, we all have them, but most of the time it's unconscious. By the lenses through which we see the world, I mean things that are a huge part of our identities and that frame our lives and influence how we interpret what we observe and experience. Some examples are gender, race, class, sexual orientation, our level of physical and mental ability, whether or not we are employed (and if this is by choice), how old we are, and other experiences we've had that are important to our development such as what kind of education we have, if we've experienced some type of abuse or neglect in our lives, and if we were raised in a religion.
The lenses a person could have aren't necessarily positive or negative—some might be more challenging to have or need to be challenged at times and some people might want to work to change how they see the world. However, certain lenses may hurt us or help us to find justification for doing things that hurt others. Still others might make us more inclined to see the world as a hopeful place or influence us to make an effort to do good.
It's important to become aware of the lenses we have—even more so if we are a part of a majority group that's been taught that their lenses are neutral, normal, natural, or right compared to people not in the majority. Once we become aware of how and why we see and experience the world the way we do, we can understand ourselves, other people, and our interactions with other people better. For an extreme example, a rich, white, straight male could have a hard time seeing the difficulties of anyone who isn't rich, white, straight, or male, and have a hard time leaving his place of a whole lot of privilege (he also might feel like he’s being picked on—I don’t know since I’m not a rich-white-straight man). However, I think that if he's able to become aware that there is a reason he sees the world in the way he does, that will go a long way to help him see around his golden glasses and come to understand other people better and it will improve his relationships with people who are not like him.
From a less privileged position (but still pretty privileged), as a white woman, it is helpful to me to remember that I should not expect that women who are black or any other race or ethnicity have been taught the same things I’ve been taught or have the same opportunities and advantages I’ve had. It is also important to keep in mind that they may not see me the way I see myself.
I started thinking about which of my lenses is the most important or influential in my life. I came up with a few big ones, but I wasn't really sure which one was most tied to fundamentally who I am.
If all of the lenses I have were going to be thrown in a bag and scrambled around with all kinds of other lenses and then I’d draw out of that bag (and maybe pull out some of the same lenses and some different ones) and I could only keep one of my current lenses for sure, I'd keep female. Even though it would be most beneficial to keep white instead of female—if by beneficial I mean having the most privilege—and even though I'd have a chance of getting female again, it's so central to my identity that I cannot imagine parting with being female. I would not be surprised if many people would choose to hang on to their gender, if only because of how important gender and gender roles are in our society.
It's interesting (but not surprising) that one of the most important parts—if not the most important part—of my identity is something that is socially constructed. Then again, so are many of the other major lenses a person can look though (such as race).
It also occurred to me that we might not like all of our lenses: someone may not like seeing the world through the lenses of someone who grew up in poverty or the lenses of someone who has lived for thirty years with depression. I suppose I'm lucky in that all of the lenses I identified as major ones for me, I either feel positively towards or feel only a slight dislike for. I wouldn't necessarily choose all of them if I had a choice at the beginning of my life, nor would I want to throw any of them away if I had the chance now. Some of them I think help me see the world more clearly, while some may often obscure my vision of reality.
Once I start thinking about things like culture and privilege and how those things interact in the world and in the lives of everyone, it’s hard for me to stop. There is so much to consider and there are always new realizations that I hope are leading me in the direction of better understanding and cultural competency. I could probably write a book-length work just on my own personal musings and what I’m learning, but I don’t really have time, nor am I an expert so doubt it would be worth if for anyone to read.
What I do believe is worth it is for everyone to educate themselves on these topics, to figure out what lenses they look at the world through, and to do their own musings.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Citizenship, John Jay, and No Religion
Yesterday I went to a citizenship class. Catholic Charities Refugee Resettlement recently received a grant to start a citizenship program and the class I attended yesterday is one of the things we're doing with the grant. Tomorrow I'll start spending some of my time working with people who are applying for citizenship.
In the class, we played bingo with words that are on the test for reading and writing. The words are also included in the 100 questions so it's easy to incorporate the vocabulary into studying for the civics test.. Some examples of words/phrases we used were Washington, Maryland, The Constitution, Adams, 1787, freedom of religion, and John Jay. I did not know who John Jay was, but apparently he was one of three men who wrote the Federalist Papers (the other two are Madison and Hamilton, which I did know).
The class only had seven people in it and the age range was somewhere from around 20 to 60. Everyone in the class had obviously studied from the week before (this was the second class out of five) and were working hard to learn. I don't know if I've ever been in a class with such motivated students. I was surprised at how motivated they were considering it was a Saturday morning and the room we were in was about fifty degrees (everyone wore their jackets the whole time). Then again, maybe I'd be motivated too if I'd been waiting to apply for citizenship for five years and wanted to have some small say in how the place I was living was run.
To me, the most interesting thing that happened was when we talked about freedom of religion and what it means—freedom to practice any religion you choose or to choose not to have a religion.
While I was pondering how I'd missed ever learning about John Jay in my seventeen years of formal (I swear I'd never heard of him until yesterday), there was a young man who was pondering something much deeper. He was maybe a year or two younger than I am and sitting directly across the table from me. He was frowning and he said, “excuse me, teacher, there are people who have no religion?”
“Yes, some people don't have any religion,” said the woman teaching the class.
“No religion? None at all? How can that be? How do they live?”
I think I was nearly as surprised by his his confusion as he was that some people don't have a religion. I was also sad because of how confused and sad he looked. He kept shaking his head and after the class had moved on, he said quietly, “I didn't know it was possible not to have a religion. How is that?”
His neighbor—a lady who was probably about his mother's age—said, “why don't you ask them?”
“Oh,” he said, “I've never met anybody like that.”
Even though I didn't know how he could live in the United States for at least five years and not realize that not everyone is religious, I could imagine the confusion he felt. After I thought about it for a little bit, I found myself sharing some of his wonderment: I understand not believe in anything specific or having any particular religion, but I find it hard to imagine not having any type of spirituality. When I look at the beauty of nature or witness someone doing something truly kind for another human being I don't know how anyone could look at that and see only a beautiful coincidence.
I know that not having a religion is different from not having any kind of spirituality, but what I started thinking about was kind of an extension from the young man's reaction.
With all of the violence in the world, all the hatred, all the poverty and oppression, and all of the random natural disasters it's easy to see why someone might not believe in the loving God that I believe in. Still, not to believe in anything at all? That makes the world seem even more hopeless. Of course, then it can be argued that people believe in God only to make themselves feel better when things go wrong or to explain things they can't explain themselves. Even if that's true and people live happier, more hopeful, and more generous lives because of those false ideas, is that such a bad thing?
In the class, we played bingo with words that are on the test for reading and writing. The words are also included in the 100 questions so it's easy to incorporate the vocabulary into studying for the civics test.. Some examples of words/phrases we used were Washington, Maryland, The Constitution, Adams, 1787, freedom of religion, and John Jay. I did not know who John Jay was, but apparently he was one of three men who wrote the Federalist Papers (the other two are Madison and Hamilton, which I did know).
The class only had seven people in it and the age range was somewhere from around 20 to 60. Everyone in the class had obviously studied from the week before (this was the second class out of five) and were working hard to learn. I don't know if I've ever been in a class with such motivated students. I was surprised at how motivated they were considering it was a Saturday morning and the room we were in was about fifty degrees (everyone wore their jackets the whole time). Then again, maybe I'd be motivated too if I'd been waiting to apply for citizenship for five years and wanted to have some small say in how the place I was living was run.
To me, the most interesting thing that happened was when we talked about freedom of religion and what it means—freedom to practice any religion you choose or to choose not to have a religion.
While I was pondering how I'd missed ever learning about John Jay in my seventeen years of formal (I swear I'd never heard of him until yesterday), there was a young man who was pondering something much deeper. He was maybe a year or two younger than I am and sitting directly across the table from me. He was frowning and he said, “excuse me, teacher, there are people who have no religion?”
“Yes, some people don't have any religion,” said the woman teaching the class.
“No religion? None at all? How can that be? How do they live?”
I think I was nearly as surprised by his his confusion as he was that some people don't have a religion. I was also sad because of how confused and sad he looked. He kept shaking his head and after the class had moved on, he said quietly, “I didn't know it was possible not to have a religion. How is that?”
His neighbor—a lady who was probably about his mother's age—said, “why don't you ask them?”
“Oh,” he said, “I've never met anybody like that.”
Even though I didn't know how he could live in the United States for at least five years and not realize that not everyone is religious, I could imagine the confusion he felt. After I thought about it for a little bit, I found myself sharing some of his wonderment: I understand not believe in anything specific or having any particular religion, but I find it hard to imagine not having any type of spirituality. When I look at the beauty of nature or witness someone doing something truly kind for another human being I don't know how anyone could look at that and see only a beautiful coincidence.
I know that not having a religion is different from not having any kind of spirituality, but what I started thinking about was kind of an extension from the young man's reaction.
With all of the violence in the world, all the hatred, all the poverty and oppression, and all of the random natural disasters it's easy to see why someone might not believe in the loving God that I believe in. Still, not to believe in anything at all? That makes the world seem even more hopeless. Of course, then it can be argued that people believe in God only to make themselves feel better when things go wrong or to explain things they can't explain themselves. Even if that's true and people live happier, more hopeful, and more generous lives because of those false ideas, is that such a bad thing?
Friday, March 11, 2011
A Nourishing Lent
This lent, I'm going all out--in fact, I may have bitten off more than I can chew: I've given up everything that doesn't nourish me in some way. I'm not just talking about food that doesn't nourish me physically because we need much more than food to nourish us. People need social, mental, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual nourishment. This means that I'm giving up food without nutritional value, yes, but I'm also giving up other things that aren't good for me such as wasting time (with things like solitaire), complaining about nothing, negative self-talk, and anything else I deem not to be good for me.
Some people say that it's better to add something good during lent rather than give up something bad--making lent a positive instead of a negative. I've done this in the past and I've found that it takes more energy to add something than to give something up (which, of course, is part of the point). I thought about adding something this year, but lately I've found myself so tired and worn down that it's overwhelming to think about adding something new. It will take a lot of energy to give up everything that doesn't nourish me and I'm sure I'll have my slip-ups (I already have). Still, I hope the end result will be that I feel refreshed and have more positive energy to share with my community, my placement, and on my relationship with God.
I hope everyone has a nourishing Lenten season whether you're giving something up, adding something, doing both, or haven't yet decided to do anything at all.
Some people say that it's better to add something good during lent rather than give up something bad--making lent a positive instead of a negative. I've done this in the past and I've found that it takes more energy to add something than to give something up (which, of course, is part of the point). I thought about adding something this year, but lately I've found myself so tired and worn down that it's overwhelming to think about adding something new. It will take a lot of energy to give up everything that doesn't nourish me and I'm sure I'll have my slip-ups (I already have). Still, I hope the end result will be that I feel refreshed and have more positive energy to share with my community, my placement, and on my relationship with God.
I hope everyone has a nourishing Lenten season whether you're giving something up, adding something, doing both, or haven't yet decided to do anything at all.
Friday, February 25, 2011
Please Take Action
I’ve been trying a lot of new things lately. Until Wednesday, I never used the forward button on my email and until yesterday, I never called a senator’s office. Yesterday I forwarded an email asking that people sign a petition to save AmeriCorps and today I forwarded an email asking people to contact their senators to keep funding for refugee programs.
I’ve sent many form letters and signed numerous online petitions in the past year or so, but today I also wrote my own personal letter and emailed it to Maine senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.
Many things will be cut in the new budget for our country and I agree that we need to spend less money, but I’m not sure all the cuts are from the right places. The two cuts in funding that I asked the senators not to support in my calls and emails are the potential cuts to Migration and Refugee Assistance and the Office of Refugee Resettlement as well as the proposed cut in funding to the Corporation for National and Community Service (which includes AmeriCorps).
Congress proposed that we completely cut the AmeriCorps program and reduce funding for refugee assistance programs by a huge amount. Both programs are extremely important. As much as I hate the idea of cutting funding for either of these programs—I can understand the need to cut some, but all of the funding for AmeriCorps? And half of the funding for refugee programs?
What I am including below is part of an email the director of my program sent to all Catholic Charities of Western New York employees.
“On Saturday, February 19, the House of Representatives recommended massive cuts to various humanitarian assistance programs, including:
45% cut to Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA);
10.4% cut to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR); and,
67% cut to International Disaster Assistance (IDA).
"Since we are already five months into the federal fiscal year those cuts would basically shut down the refugee assistance program within the US and severely reduce refugee processing overseas. There would not be money available to resettle more refugees until October 2011. Since our funding is per capita performance-based, no new arrivals equals no more funding.”
I understand the desire to cut programs that serve non-Americans, but refugees are some of the most vulnerable people in the world who have experienced great violence, oppression, and human rights violations in their home countries, as well as in many of the refugee camps. In addition, refugees bring important diversity to our communities, rent apartments from Americans, work, pay taxes, start businesses, and by cars and homes in the United States. There are also many refugee resettlement and assistance programs similar to the one where I work that would either shut down or have to lay off many employees.
When our director told us of the possibility of these cuts, I felt sick to my stomach, but I’m sure my feeling was nothing compared to many of my coworkers who are themselves former refugees and many of whom are applying to bring their family members to the United States.
Especially in this economy, volunteers fill needed positions in many jobs that directly serve the most vulnerable Americans. Agencies that serve the disadvantaged are already under-funded and under-staffed and often rely on the help of full-time volunteers. Not only would fewer services be provided without AmeriCorps, but more people would need those services because at least some of the volunteers would be unemployed if they were not in full-time volunteer programs. AmeriCorps provides important job experience to More than 85,000 young Americans a year. I know that AmeriCorps is an expensive program, but it is far less expensive than having a regular, paid employee and paying for all the consequences of less services to those most in need.
Again and again programs that help the poor and vulnerable are the programs that are cut by the government because the people don’t have a voice and are forgotten. I disagree with the Catholic Church on many issues, but I strongly believe in the Catholic Social Teachings that tells us we need to have preferential options for the poor. Cutting programs for refugees and AmeriCorps (as well as other service programs) do not follow with this social teaching.
Please sign a petition, send a letter to your senator, or call your senator to help protect funding for refugee programs and AmeriCorps. I believe it is our moral obligation to help those most in need, which includes Americans and non-Americans.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that we have to take action and fight for justice for things that directly affect us and for people who are poor and marginalized. We are all in this world together and, as much as we might want to ignore people who are easily forgotten, there will never be peace and justice if we don’t include everyone.
I’ve sent many form letters and signed numerous online petitions in the past year or so, but today I also wrote my own personal letter and emailed it to Maine senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe.
Many things will be cut in the new budget for our country and I agree that we need to spend less money, but I’m not sure all the cuts are from the right places. The two cuts in funding that I asked the senators not to support in my calls and emails are the potential cuts to Migration and Refugee Assistance and the Office of Refugee Resettlement as well as the proposed cut in funding to the Corporation for National and Community Service (which includes AmeriCorps).
Congress proposed that we completely cut the AmeriCorps program and reduce funding for refugee assistance programs by a huge amount. Both programs are extremely important. As much as I hate the idea of cutting funding for either of these programs—I can understand the need to cut some, but all of the funding for AmeriCorps? And half of the funding for refugee programs?
What I am including below is part of an email the director of my program sent to all Catholic Charities of Western New York employees.
“On Saturday, February 19, the House of Representatives recommended massive cuts to various humanitarian assistance programs, including:
45% cut to Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA);
10.4% cut to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR); and,
67% cut to International Disaster Assistance (IDA).
"Since we are already five months into the federal fiscal year those cuts would basically shut down the refugee assistance program within the US and severely reduce refugee processing overseas. There would not be money available to resettle more refugees until October 2011. Since our funding is per capita performance-based, no new arrivals equals no more funding.”
I understand the desire to cut programs that serve non-Americans, but refugees are some of the most vulnerable people in the world who have experienced great violence, oppression, and human rights violations in their home countries, as well as in many of the refugee camps. In addition, refugees bring important diversity to our communities, rent apartments from Americans, work, pay taxes, start businesses, and by cars and homes in the United States. There are also many refugee resettlement and assistance programs similar to the one where I work that would either shut down or have to lay off many employees.
When our director told us of the possibility of these cuts, I felt sick to my stomach, but I’m sure my feeling was nothing compared to many of my coworkers who are themselves former refugees and many of whom are applying to bring their family members to the United States.
Especially in this economy, volunteers fill needed positions in many jobs that directly serve the most vulnerable Americans. Agencies that serve the disadvantaged are already under-funded and under-staffed and often rely on the help of full-time volunteers. Not only would fewer services be provided without AmeriCorps, but more people would need those services because at least some of the volunteers would be unemployed if they were not in full-time volunteer programs. AmeriCorps provides important job experience to More than 85,000 young Americans a year. I know that AmeriCorps is an expensive program, but it is far less expensive than having a regular, paid employee and paying for all the consequences of less services to those most in need.
Again and again programs that help the poor and vulnerable are the programs that are cut by the government because the people don’t have a voice and are forgotten. I disagree with the Catholic Church on many issues, but I strongly believe in the Catholic Social Teachings that tells us we need to have preferential options for the poor. Cutting programs for refugees and AmeriCorps (as well as other service programs) do not follow with this social teaching.
Please sign a petition, send a letter to your senator, or call your senator to help protect funding for refugee programs and AmeriCorps. I believe it is our moral obligation to help those most in need, which includes Americans and non-Americans.
It is becoming increasingly obvious that we have to take action and fight for justice for things that directly affect us and for people who are poor and marginalized. We are all in this world together and, as much as we might want to ignore people who are easily forgotten, there will never be peace and justice if we don’t include everyone.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Same Old Sad Story
Last Friday a few of the other CCSC volunteers and I went to a program called “Telling Stories” at the University of Buffalo which was about sexual assault and domestic abuse/intimate partner abuse. The program consisted of an original play about campus sexual assault, a panel discussion with people associated from the university, a documentary called Telling Amy's Story which was about a woman who was murdered by her husband in November of 2001, and a panel discussion by people in the Buffalo community who work with victims of domestic violence.
The program went exactly how I expected (except for a fire alarm at the very beginning which I thought might be apart of the play until everyone started evacuating). First, it was very upsetting. Second, there was a lot about where a victim of sexual assault or domestic violence can go for help and almost nothing about prevention. Only one man on the first discussion panel briefly mentioned not being a passive bystander.
Don't misunderstand me, it's extremely important for victims to know where they can go for help and I'm glad there was education about that at this event, but it would be better for the assaults and abuse never to happen in the first place. This is another example of the relationship between charity and social justice: we need both until the actions for social justice work, thereby making the charity no longer necessary.
I want to go to a panel discussion on how to stop these things from happening in the first place. Sexual assault and domestic violence/intimate partner violence is something that's very scary, complicated, and difficult to prevent. Prevention is more difficult than helping victims after/during the abuse (though that's far from easy), so maybe it's too hard a subject to touch and people would rather not go there. A big part of it is a problem of culture, society, and gender expectations/norms and those are things that are not easy to change and the thought of changing them is very scary for some people.
Until the shame and stigma moves off the victim on to the abuser we'll have domestic violence and sexual assault. Until we stop simplifying these issues as women with low self-esteem staying in bad relationships and men with anger problems abusing their girlfriends/wives we'll have domestic violence. Until we stop shrugging and saying there is something wrong with men we'll have domestic violence and sexual assault. Until it becomes easier for victims to leave their abusers we'll have domestic violence. Until we start believing victims who speak up we'll have sexual assault and domestic violence. I could go on and on.
I don't know the solutions, but I'd like to have an open, thoughtful discussion about possible solutions.
The program went exactly how I expected (except for a fire alarm at the very beginning which I thought might be apart of the play until everyone started evacuating). First, it was very upsetting. Second, there was a lot about where a victim of sexual assault or domestic violence can go for help and almost nothing about prevention. Only one man on the first discussion panel briefly mentioned not being a passive bystander.
Don't misunderstand me, it's extremely important for victims to know where they can go for help and I'm glad there was education about that at this event, but it would be better for the assaults and abuse never to happen in the first place. This is another example of the relationship between charity and social justice: we need both until the actions for social justice work, thereby making the charity no longer necessary.
I want to go to a panel discussion on how to stop these things from happening in the first place. Sexual assault and domestic violence/intimate partner violence is something that's very scary, complicated, and difficult to prevent. Prevention is more difficult than helping victims after/during the abuse (though that's far from easy), so maybe it's too hard a subject to touch and people would rather not go there. A big part of it is a problem of culture, society, and gender expectations/norms and those are things that are not easy to change and the thought of changing them is very scary for some people.
Until the shame and stigma moves off the victim on to the abuser we'll have domestic violence and sexual assault. Until we stop simplifying these issues as women with low self-esteem staying in bad relationships and men with anger problems abusing their girlfriends/wives we'll have domestic violence. Until we stop shrugging and saying there is something wrong with men we'll have domestic violence and sexual assault. Until it becomes easier for victims to leave their abusers we'll have domestic violence. Until we start believing victims who speak up we'll have sexual assault and domestic violence. I could go on and on.
I don't know the solutions, but I'd like to have an open, thoughtful discussion about possible solutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)